What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371768 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Matakana Country Park Limited $2,561.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5371768?

Compensation: Rent Reimbursement: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $7,961.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371768?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12801678-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371768 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Matakana Country Park Limited $2,561.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5371768?

Compensation: Rent Reimbursement: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $7,961.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371768?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12801678-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1151 Leigh Road, Matakana, RD 5, Matakana 0985 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5371768 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371768 — net $2,561.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,961.00		Rent arrears
Compensation: Rent reimbursement		$600.00	Rent reimbursement
Exemplary damages - Healthy Homes Standards		$2,400.00	Exemplary damages - Healthy Homes Standards
Exemplary damages - Maintenance		$2,400.00	Exemplary damages - Maintenance
Total award	$7,961.00	$5,400.00
Net award	$2,561.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,561.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371768 — net $2,561.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,961.00		Rent arrears
Compensation: Rent reimbursement		$600.00	Rent reimbursement
Exemplary damages - Healthy Homes Standards		$2,400.00	Exemplary damages - Healthy Homes Standards
Exemplary damages - Maintenance		$2,400.00	Exemplary damages - Maintenance
Total award	$7,961.00	$5,400.00
Net award	$2,561.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,561.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Matakana Country Park Limited $2,561.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenant and landlord.
The tenancy has ended. The tenant brings claims around various matters in relation to the premises, including whether they are unlawful residential premises, the Healthy Homes Standards, maintenance and compensation. The landlord seeks rent arrears.

BACKGROUND

There is some discrepancy between the parties as to the precise tenancy start date, but it was around October or November 2023. There was no written tenancy agreement.
The evidence is that the premises are located on a camping ground for Matakana Country Park Limited. For brevity in this order, I will simply refer to the company as Matakana.
Mr Goddard initially came to Matakana, and rented parking for his bus, and then subsequently rented a cabin that was on site. The parties agreed that the rental for the cabin would be $175.00 per week, and the bus park at $125.00 per week – being a combined $300.00 per week.
The cabin in question is a ‘portacabin’. The cabin is small, about 15 square metres in size. There is a combined living / sleeping area, and a kitchenette and bathroom / toilet area at the rear of the cabin.
Mr Goddard has described a range of defects with the cabin, and the service provided by the landlord, including maintenance, and I will discuss those matters further below under the claims.
The landlord reports that rent arrears arose, and that became an issue for the parties.
Mr Goddard issued a notice terminating his tenancy.
Mr Goddard also reports that at the end of his time at Makana, he had goods that were lost or damaged, and that is a further claim I must consider.
The landlord’s position is that this is not a residential tenancy, which means that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) would not apply. I convened an earlier hearing and issued a decision on 17 October 2025, looking solely at the question of whether this was a dispute that fell within the RTA. I determined that it was a residential tenancy for the reason set out in that order.
A further hearing was scheduled for 1 December 2025, where I heard the claims from both parties, and this is the decision that results from that.

CLAIMS TO BE DETERMINED

The claims the Tribunal must consider our as follows.
Claims from the tenant are: a. Exemplary damages for renting an unlawful residential premises. b. Exemplary damages for breaching the Healthy Homes Standards c. Exemplary damages for breaching the landlord’s obligations in relation to maintenance and inspections. d. Compensation for damage and loss to the tenant’s goods at the end of tenancy. e. Compensation for work the tenant-funded or undertook such as plumbing and maintenance.
The landlord’s claim is for rent arrears only.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider a claims for exemplary damages filed by Mr Goddard.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the respective claims in return.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Unlawful residential premises

The tenant’s position is that the premises are unlawful residential premises.
The tenant states the Council has not provided consent for the premises to be used for residential purposes. At the end of the tenancy Mr Goddard contacted the Council on 18 August 2025, and he was advised by the council officer he spoke to, that someone would visit the park. Mr Goddard believes that they did come to the site, but the Council did not get back to him on what they found.
The tenant also says that there was no hot water available in his cabin, and he would need to shower in the public showers on site. The tenant says he has had a plumber look at the hot water system, and could not get it going.
The tenant also states there was a problem with the power, where water would pool in the exterior power fitting, so he needed to wrap it with plastic. That was raised with the landlord who disputed that there was an issue with the power.
The tenant describes the cabin leaking, and being mouldy. When he moved out of the premises, he needed to dispose of some clothing. The tenant says that when this was raised with the landlord, there was no response.
In response, the landlord says that this is a tiny house, and they are not illegal, and consent was not required, because the house is less than 30 square metres (this building is 15 square metres).
The premises do have a hot water heater, but the tenant is not supposed to use it, because it is not connected to a waste. But the landlord confirmed that there was a cold water supply into the cabin.
There is a caravan plug for the power, it was installed by an electrician and meets the necessary legal criteria. The landlord disputes that the connection is faulty. The landlord’s position is that the only issue with the electrical plug, was the plastic bag that Mr Goddard had placed over it, which was simply a bread bag taped around the fitting.
The landlord agrees that the cabin was reported as leaking by Mr Goddard, but after Mr Goddard moved out there has not been further leaking. Further the landlord says that when the issue of leaking was described, Mr Goddard said he would fix it himself.
The landlord confirmed that the Council did visit the site, and the only issue they took was how close it was to the stream. The cabin was 6 metres from a stream, it needed to be 20 metres unless there was a resource consent.
In response to what the landlord said, Mr Goddard said that the photograph of a plastic bag over the electrical fitting provided by the landlord was not the plastic bag that he put over the fitting.
Mr Goddard advised that he was using the toilet, but there was no odour or any accumulation of waste. Analysis
Mr Goddard’s position is that the premises are unlawful residential premises.
Section 78A of the RTA gives the Tenancy Tribunal power to make a range of orders if the evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the premises are or were at any material time “unlawful residential premises”. “Unlawful residential premises” is defined as: Residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but – (a) That cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes which that person is granted occupation), and (b) Where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c) has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation.
Section 36 of the RTA states that the landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for unlawful purposes.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA provides that the landlord must comply with all requirements and respect of buildings, health and safety and any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
The public policy behind the introduction of section 78A was to discourage landlords from renting out properties that were, for example, unconsented or unlawful and had therefore never been subject to the need to meet legal requirements to ensure their health and safe occupation by tenants. In moving that the Bill relating to section 78A be read a first time in parliament, the Hon Dr Nick Smith stated: ...There have been examples around the country of garages or other properties that are being rented out that do not go anywhere near meeting the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act but where there are limitations on our new compliance teams being able to enforce them because of that jurisdiction issue. My view is that the amendments in this bill that make it plain that the tribunal has full jurisdiction over unlawful residential premises will strengthen the regulatory environment and ensure that those people who attempt to rent out such properties are held accountable. 1
The Tribunal is obliged to take a strict approach in such situations because of the serious risk involved. If there had been a fire, for instance, in the premises, the consequences not just for the tenants but also for the landlord, could have been very serious, including loss of life. That kind of scenario indicates how seriously the Tenancy Tribunal must approach these situations and is no doubt why Parliament has facilitated severe sanctions in the RTA for renting out premises that are unlawful. 2
The first consideration after determining whether premises are unlawful is that there needs to be a finding that the property cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes. This first step involves making a finding that the whole of 1 See also The Hon Phil Twyford: “This bill aims to strengthen the powers for prosecuting landlords who have rented out unsuitable accommodation, such as garages, warehouses, and industrial buildings. There was one very notable case—I think it was 61 Molesworth Street—where, at the time of the Wellington earthquakes, the ratbag owner of that building had rented out a lot of that commercial space to tenants. They were found to be living not only in kind of unsafe and unsuitable accommodation but— what the bill points out is that if people are not in premises that are consented for residential purposes, then landlords cannot be held to the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act.” 2 Noted in North v Hunt [2021] NZTT 429579 at [30] and [31]. the property has some sort of regulatory failure which means it cannot be occupied as a residential dwelling. The unlawfulness must be more than, say, just an outstanding permit for a bathroom. 3 The next consideration is whether the landlord has caused or contributed to that unlawful situation.
Based on the evidence available, I find that the premises were unlawful and could not have been rented, but only because it required a resource consent. The landlord has accepted that was the outcome from the inspection by the Council, Mr Goddard has not provided evidence showing that the Council inspection identified anything beyond that.
While, the tenant has identified various maintenance issues, they would not make the dwelling unlawful to live in, and I will address the maintenance issues below.
The second part of the test in section 78A(2), looks to whether the landlord’s failure to comply, contributed to the premises being unlawful. The answer to that, must be that yes, the landlord’s failure is contributory. That is because the landlord needed to obtain the resource consent, and because the landlord did not obtain that, the premises became a lawful as far as residential uses concern.
The question then becomes, what the remedy must be. Section. 78A(4) confirms: Without limiting the generality of section 77 or the nature or extent of orders that the Tribunal may make in accordance with this Act in relation to the matter,— (a) the Tribunal may order the landlord to pay to the tenant— (i) the whole of the sum found to have been paid by way of rent for the period for which the Tribunal is satisfied that the premises are or were unlawful residential premises; or (ii) an amount that is the sum referred to in subparagraph (i) less any amount that the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it is fair to deduct: 3 See Mansfield v Silk and another [2020] NZ TT 4246581 at [16].
In short, if the premises are deemed unlawful, the Tribunal has a discretion to order a refund of the entire amount of the rent paid, and may deduct from that an amount based on any special circumstances that would be fair to deduct.
In this case, I have determined that a rent refund should be made to the tenant, but I also conclude that the special circumstances of the case require that the significant amount of the rent paid, be retained by the landlord. That is because the breach is a largely technical breach, that is a resource consent was not obtained for the dwelling. There is no evidence that the council had any concerns about the dwelling. Otherwise, it simply needed to be moved away from the stream. There is no evidence before me that the standard of the dwelling, or Mr Godard’s enjoyment of his time there, would have been any different if the cabin was an additional 14 m away from the stream, at which point a resource consent would not be required.
It was a breach nevertheless, and I have determined that some money should be refunded from the rent, which I set at $600.00, or two weeks of rental.
The Tribunal can also order exemplary damages when a landlord rents premises that are unlawful residential premises. I have sent out the test I must apply when considering exemplary damages claims. The first consideration is whether the breach was intentional. In this case, I am not persuaded that the breach was intentional; my impression is that the landlords believed that they did not need any consent, given it was a tiny home, and in short, there is no evidence to show that the landlords deliberately said about breaching their legal obligations around resource consents. Because their breach is not intentional, exemplary damages cannot be ordered. Claim 2 – Exemplary damages for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant claimed exemplary damages for a breach of the landlord’s obligations, under the Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenant said that with certain wind, the premises would leak, where water would blow under flashings, wetting the inside of the cabin. The tenant said there was mould on the carpets and walls.
The tenant states that there was no form of heating provided.
The tenant states that he would cook with an air fryer, and would use a butane gas cooker. There was no extraction fan.
The landlord’s position is that the premises are insulated. It is agreed that no heating is provided, because it is so well insulated. If the tenant asked for a heater, they would have provided one.
The landlord states there is a moisture barrier between the insulation and ply floor, but no barrier on the ground.
In relation to cooking facilities, there is only a bench (a kitchenette), and room for a fridge and sink. It was not intended that any substantive cooking would be done in the kitchenette, Mr Goddard would use his bus for that.
The landlord agrees there was no extractor fan in the kitchen.
As far as the leak is concerned, Mr Goddard did raise this, but said he would sort it out, otherwise, the landlord would have got the builders to fix the leak, as they have builders / maintenance on site. But again the landlord states that it has not leaked since Mr Goddard was living there.
The tenant responded, saying that he did not cook in his bus, he was using that for a music studio, and he would not cook around his instruments.
Mr Goddard said he would fix the leaks himself, because the landlord would not do this work himself. Analysis
The tenant has claimed that Matakana has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage. In this case, Mr Goddard submits that there has been a breach of the heating, ventilation, and moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered as set out in Schedule 1A to the RTA, is $7,200.00. Heating standard:
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances, but I cannot see they apply in this case.
In Mr Godard’s Tenancy, there was no heater, which is not in dispute. No form of heating was provided by the landlord, and therefore the landlord has breached its obligations in relation to compliance with the HHS. Ventilation standard:
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances, but again those have not been established.
There is no dispute that no extract fans were provided in the kitchen. Notwithstanding that this was a small cabin, the landlord still needed to comply with the HHS, which required an extractor fan. The landlord has breached this obligation also. Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. One of those circumstances is when the space under the floor is inadequate, in order to install a ground moisture barrier. Considering the photographs, the floor is very close to the ground level; I do not accept that it would be reasonable to install a ground moisture barrier in that circumstance.
However, there is also an obligation the premises have a drainage system, that efficiently drains, stormwater, surface water, and groundwater to an appropriate outfall. The cabin is commercially built, and I have no reason to believe that the design or how it was constructed would not meet that requirement. The evidence of Mr Goddard is that there would be water ingress when wind was blowing in a certain direction, I will consider that under the maintenance claim below. HHS conclusion
I am satisfied that the landlord has breached its HHS obligations, as it relates to heating and ventilation. That is two out of the five standards. Failing to comply with the HHS is deemed in an unlawful act.
Considering the section 109 factors, I conclude that the breach must be accepted as intentional. The landlord is a sizable operation, and it can be expected that a landlord of that size would be aware of their minimum tenancy obligations. The requirement to comply with the healthy home standards is well known, and to that extent I conclude that the breach is likely to be intentional. There was an impact for Mr Goddard, because he lived in premises that did not have heating of any form. Even if the premises were well insulated, that is not evidence that the premises would have been sufficiently warm during cold days and evenings. There was no extractor fan in the kitchen, which means that cooking inside the cabin would have increased the moisture, as well as odours and greasy residue. There is a strong interest for tenants generally, and the public, that landlords provide dwellings that comply with the HHS, because that is the minimum requirement and an important way that tenants can be confident they are living in warm, dry, and healthy dwellings. It would be just to make an order.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for a breach of the HHS, is $7,200.00. In this case I consider an order at 1/3rd of the maximum would be reasonable, and that is ordered, being $2,400.00. Claim 3 – Exemplary damages for breaching the landlords obligations around maintenance and inspections
The tenant says that the landlord has not undertaken maintenance at the premises.
The tenant said that the lawns around the cabin were not maintained by the landlord, so he stopped asking for the landlord to mow the area around his cabin. Because the landlord would not get on and get this work done, the tenant purchased his own mower so he could do this work.
The tenant said the landlord did not maintain the premises with reference to the water coming into the power box. The tenant said that even after he raised this with the landlord, the landlord did not get the box assessed or repaired.
The tenant further said there were drainage issues around his bus, and when the landlord would not fix this, the tenant got out and dug the trench around the cabin.
The tenant said there were no inspections undertaken of the premises.
In response, the landlord states that there are 50 acres around the campground, and the lawns are mowed. The tenant did say he wanted to do his own lawns, and that was agreed to. The landlord states that no other site mows their own lawns, and around two days each week someone is undertaking lawn work. Because this is a public place, it is kept tidy. The landlord confirmed there is an area where a fence in effect makes a default lawn area that is only used by the tenancy.
Commercial cleaners clean the public toilets, and the landlord also does work there when needed.
In relation to the power box, the landlord disputes that this was raised with them during the tenancy. The neighbouring commercial tenant uses the same power supply and they have not described any loss of power.
The landlord said that given they were on site, and the cabin was so visible, and as they would often be speaking with regular contacts, the tenant would say if there were issues, or the tenant would send a text message.
In reply to the landlord’s defence, the tenant refers to a text message where the landlord said they would not clean the toilets given the state they were in, but the commercial cleaner were unreliable.
Mr Goddard maintained that the lawns were very high, and that everyone else had their lawns mowed other than him. Analysis
The RTA requires that a landlord maintain the premises.
I will deal firstly with the tenant’s submission, that the landlord did not undertake inspections. In fact there is no legal obligation on the landlord to undertake regular inspections; most landlords do, but it is not a legal requirement.
As far as the power box is concerned, there is differing evidence from the parties on that matter. The tenant says this was raised with the landlord, the landlord disputes that. On balance, based on the information I have available, I find there is no reason to prefer the tenant’s statement that the landlord was notified over the landlord’s statement that it was not. The onus is on the tenant to provide evidence establishing the claim, in this case he has not done so. I note, however, that it is difficult to understand what motivation there would have been for the landlord not to have addressed an electrical safety issue if they realised this was present. Obviously, Electrical safety presents a significant issue for tenants and others around the complex; it also presents a significant risk for the landlord’s property, and normally, it would not be something a landlord would decline to address if concerns were raised.
In relation to the lawns, I consider the more likely situation is that the landlord does undertake lawn mowing, the landlord’s evidence was that somebody would be on a mower for about two days each week, and given the nature of the camping ground, that would make sense to me. I gained the impression that Mr Goddard had his high standards for his environment, and I question whether he purchased a mower so that he could mow that area, so that it aligned with his expected standards. But ultimately, the tenant has not established that the landlord has failed to undertake the mowing around his cabin.
As far as the hot water is concerned, I have no reason to believe that the hot water heater system that was provided, was not operational as the landlord claims. Again, the obligation is on the tenant to prove the breach. In this case, I have the tenant saying the hot water heater was not working, but I have the landlord saying it only needed to have the gas bottle attached. The landlord was not obligated to provide the gas bottle, that would fall to the tenant to supply a utility of that nature.
I am not persuade that there were material issues with drainage. The evidence is that the council had been to the premises, and other than the sighting of the cabin being too close to a stream, there is no suggestion that the landlord’s officers identified any concerns around drainage.
There has also been insufficient evidence to show that the public toilets were not reasonably clean. Again this was a camping ground, and it would be expected that those toilets would be kept in a reasonable state.
In relation to the water leak, the evidence is that the landlord was aware of the water leak. It is not enough simply to leave the tenant to fix it, the landlord had a positive obligation when it was raised, to get on and get the water leak repaired.
When a landlord fails to maintain premises, as is the case with the water leak, then they commit an unlawful act, meaning exemplary damages could be ordered.
Taking into account the section 109 factors, I find the breach was intentional, and that the landlord was aware there was a water leak at the premises. The landlord elected to let the tenant deal with it. The effect for the tenant, I accept, is that he lived in premises that would leak with rain of a certain direction. There are very strong interest for tenants, landlords, and the public generally, that tenancies are maintained, and tenants do not live in damp dwellings. I consider it would be just to order exemplary damages for this breach.
I note that I have already made an order that the landlord pay exemplary damages for a breach of the HHS. That was an order under section 45 of the RTA, which is the same provision that the maintenance obligation arises. The Tribunal is able to order exemplary damages to a maximum of $7,200.00, but that is the maximum for all breaches under section 45.
For the water leak, I order that the landlord pay exemplary damages to Mr Goddard, of a further $2,400.00. Claim 4 – Compensation for damage and loss to tenants’ goods at the end of the tenancy.
Mr Goddard states that at the end of the tenancy, his goods were damaged. Mr Goddard gave himself a week to get out of the premises. Mr Goddard said that he had a shed on the premises and it had been dragged across the lawn and damaged, and also he had goods in the shed. Mr Goddard said the shed was next to his bus, and it had power tools in it. In his cabin he had a bed, appliances, air fryer. When he came back to get his goods all there was was his shed in a pile. Mr Goddard said he needed his tools in order to convert his bus. Mr Goddard said he does not know how to value these items.
In response the landlord said they were overseas at the time the bed was damaged, but that what they were told by Susan Martin, that Mr Goddard told her to get rid of the bed in the cabin, which she had removed outside, as part of cleaning the cabin. Susan was helping Mr Goddard with the cleaning process.
The landlord referred to the written statement from Ms Martin, to the extent that the landlord did not provide any instructions to dispose of the tenants’ goods (as they were overseas - at the hearing the landlord checked their itinerary which records they departed Auckland on 17 August), and that the shed had been damaged by someone else.
Mr Goddard responded that he said to Susan that he was not sure if he was going to keep the bed or not.
Mr Goddard advised that the shed was damaged on 15 August.
Mr Goddard disputes that the landlords were out of New Zealand when his shed was destroyed, and he considers that Susan is lying.
Mr Goddard believes that the landlord had wrongly stated they were overseas at the time the shed was destroyed as he said he was in Orewa.
Mr Goddard said it would have taken him and three or four other people to have done the damage to his shed. Analysis
Mr. Goddard seeks compensation for lost goods from his shed, and also items from his cabin.
In terms of the lost goods from his shed, I conclude that Mr Goddard has not proven that the landlord destroyed his shed, and took his belongings. The position taken by the landlord is that it was two other tenants who took the shed down, and those tenants were named in the hearing. Otherwise, Mr Goddard has not provided evidence which proves to me that it was the landlord who caused that damage, or took his items.
I note that the landlord has provided a statement from Susan Martin dated 15 October 2025. Ms Martin would undertake work for the landlord, and my impression is that she had a good relationship with Mr Goddard, which makes the statement more compelling. Ms Martin states that. On the 13/8 I saw JB [Mr Goddard] had moved his belongings over from the cabin to his bus and was packing it and his car. He had driven off in his bus about 1 pm. When he returned the following day his shed had been damaged and moved with the contents left on the ground. JB believed that the owner Brendan was responsible. However, I was aware that the damage has actually been caused by two other residents at the campground who had ongoing issues with JB. At the time, I chose not to disclose this information as I was concerned that doing so might lead to a confrontation or escalation between JB and the individuals involved. I now recognise that by not speaking up this has contributed to JB’s misunderstanding of the situation and him placing the blame on Brendan.
Mr. Goddard submitted that the landlord (Brendan) had been dishonest because he had said in a text message that he was in Orewa, but at the hearing said he was overseas. I am not persuaded that that is the case; the landlord confirmed at the hearing they were overseas from 17 August, which was after the shed was damaged. So being in Orewa like the text message said was quite possible.
The landlord does not have an obligation to pay compensation for damage caused by other tenants, therefore I find there is no breach that compensation can be ordered to remedy.
In terms of Mr Goddard’s bed, or any other goods, I am not persuaded that there has been a breach on the part of the landlord.
Again Ms Martin addressed this in her statement. She said that on 17 August she was undertaking cleaning in the cabin, and found that Mr Goddard had left a mirror and a bed. That morning she telephoned Mr. Goddard to ask what she should do with those items, and that.: JB was very clear in his response – he stated that he wanted to keep the mirror but did not want the bed. Following his instructions, I removed the bed from the cabin and placed it outside intending to dispose of it later as part of the general cleanup. Overnight it rained the end in the early hours of the following morning. JB returned to the park to collect other items he had left behind. He saw the bed outside now wet from the rain and he contacted me very angry. That it had been moved outdoors. I reminded him that he had told me he did not want the bed. He responded by saying’ I know Brendan told you to’. To be absolutely clear, Brendan was overseas at the time. Apart from asking me to clean the cabin, Brendan had no knowledge of or involvement in any of the decisions made regarding the bed or any of JB’s possessions. I was never instructed by Brendan, or by anyone else to damage, dispose of, or interfere with any of JB’s belongings.
I accept Ms Martin’s statement, it aligns with the evidence of the landlord. I find, therefore, that there is no evidence that the landlord has damaged Mr Goddard’s bed. Rather, the evidence supports a conclusion that Mr Goddard had requested Ms Martin to dispose of his bed, and to that extent she took the bed outside in the course of disposing of it.
Furthermore, there is a legal issue for Mr Goddard. Mr Goddard records in the application form submitted to the Tribunal, that the tenancy ended on 14 August 2025. The legal obligation on Mr Goddard at the end of the tenancy, was to return the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and to remove his belongings (Section 45(1)(e)). To that extent, the obligation on Mr Goddard was to have removed those items when the tenancy ended, that was according to Mr Goddard, 14 August.
For the above reasons, I find that no breach of an obligation from the landlord to the tenant has been established, from which compensation for goods could be ordered. Claim 5 – Compensation for work the tenant funded or undertook.
The tenant says that the handyman / grounds keeper at the premises did not do a good job (and was later dismissed). Mr Goddard said that he presented a proposal to the landlord that he would do work around the premises in lieu of rent, but that the landlord did not get back to him, but he proceeded with it anyway, given the landlord was informed this is what he would do.
Mr Goddard gave the example of fixing the judder bars a the premises and “I took it upon myself” to do that work.
The landlord confirmed that Mr Goddard asked a number of times if he could work at the park, and he always said ‘no’, because he had his own employees, and they did not want him doing things. The landlord disputes that there were issues with the handyman’s work.
In conclusion Mr Goddard said if he needed something done, he would just get on and get it done. Analysis
There is no doubt that Mr Goddard has undertaken work around the campsite, which I accept without reservation, Mr Goddard undertook voluntarily, with an intention to assist the landlord or otherwise be helpful. That is commendable. I accept that Mr Goddard had good intentions when he did the things he did to assist.
However, the question becomes a strict legal one, that is, whether the landlord is now obligated to pay the tenant, or compensate him for that work, and I find the landlord is not. In terms of the work that was done, there is no suggestion that the landlord had asked Mr Goddard to do the things he did, they were done voluntarily. That being the case, there is no legal obligation on the landlord to now pay for that work, or to compensate Mr Goddard in any way.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

The landlord claims rent arrears only, which are the rent arrears that arose from 7 August 2024 to the end of the tenancy.
The landlord states that they tried to engage with Mr Goddard about the rent arrears,
The tenant said that he has reduced his rent payments based on the work he undertook at the campsite, which he has charged the landlord at $45.00 per hour.
The tenant now accepts that he should not have done it.
The tenant has further stated that there were cash payments made that the landlord has not taken into account. I asked Mr Goddard what the dates were that he made the cash payments, Mr Goddard could not recall those dates. Mr Goddard considers that the landlord has acted fraudulently with the rent ledger.
The landlord said that the tenant has made cash payments, but that was before 7 August 2024 (when the rent ledger commenced from. Analysis
The RTA requires that tenants pay rent to the landlord, as it falls due. Mr Goddard has not disputed that requirement.
For the reason stated above, the landlord was not obligated to pay for work that Mr Goddard undertook voluntarily at the campsite, and therefore, Mr Goddard was not able to deduct a rate from the rental payments for that work.
In terms of the cash payments, the landlord accepts that some cash payments were received, but they were for a period prior to the current rent ledger the landlord provided, which commences on 7 August 2024. The landlord explains that prior to that date, the rent was up-to-date, and it was within that period that the cash payments we received, to that extent there is no evidence that the cash payments received by the landlord have not been accounted for.
I have no reason to believe that the landlord’s rent records were wrong as far as the payments are concerned. I accept that the landlord has allocated $150 each for the bus park, and the cabin, and that was wrong; it should have been $175 for the cabin, and $125 for the bus pack. But either way, the amount due for rent was $300. The landlord has correctly applied the overall $300 amount due on a weekly basis.
What remains is that the landlord’s rent records show that there has been a $7,961.00 shortfall in the rent payments, and Mr Goddard is liable to pay that sum.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371768 — Rent arrears at 1151 Leigh Road, Matakana, RD 5, Matakana 0985

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371768 — Rent arrears at 1151 Leigh Road, Matakana, RD 5, Matakana 0985

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

CLAIMS TO BE DETERMINED

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

CLAIMS TO BE DETERMINED

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions